The Behavioral Welfare Paradox: Practical, Ethical and Welfare Implications of Nudging

Just, David R.

doi:10.1017/age.2017.2

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding the process by which people learn and update their preferences for these novel products, even if they are unstable, is important. The findings of studies that examined behavioral biases have also undermined some of the conceptual foundations behind welfare economics (Just, 2017;Lusk, 2014), but have also raised interesting, researchable questions about how people might act on others' behavioral biases (e.g., Lusk et al, 2014) or respond to paternalism from others (Debnam, 2017;Just and Hanks, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to run an experimental auction: a review of recent advances

Canavari

Drichoutis

Lusk

et al. 2019

European Review of Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we review recent advances in experimental auctions and provide practical advice and guidelines for researchers. We focus on issues related to randomisation to treatment and causal identification of treatment effects, design issues such as selection between different elicitation formats, multiple auction groups in a single session and house money effects. We also discuss sample size and power analysis issues in relation to recent trends in experimental research about pre-registration and pre-analysis plans. We position our discussion with respect to how the agricultural economics profession could benefit from practices adapted in the experimental economics community. We then present the pros and cons of moving auction studies from the laboratory to the field and review the recent literature on behavioural factors that have been identified as important for auction outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to run an experimental auction: a review of recent advances

Canavari

Drichoutis

Lusk

et al. 2019

European Review of Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparently, consumers routinely expect to spend less eating out, even though they often do not. However, even if it were the case that food waste was caused by behavioral biases, one would still require a welfare function to evaluate desirability of policy outcomes, a problematic issue when consumers’ preferences are unstable or are deemed “incorrect” (e.g., see Lusk, 2014 or Just, 2017).…”

Section: Some Concluding Thoughts On Food Waste As a Normative Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of household food waste

Lusk

Ellison

2020

Canadian J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food waste has drawn increasing public attention, and the high levels of estimated waste are largely considered to be a failure of our current food system. Recently, economists have begun to weigh in, showing food waste can emerge as the result of a complex equilibrium affected by consumers' preferences for convenience; expectations about future food prices and availability; food safety concerns; producers' costs of holding inventory, transportation, and storage; government regulation; and technology. If food waste is a form of inefficiency, there are either strong economic motivations to reduce waste, or unmeasured costs or preferences affecting waste decisions. If consumers have behavioral biases, suffer from information asymmetries, or do not pay the full cost of their waste, there may be a role for government intervention to reduce waste, but most empirical models in the literature have not articulated or quantified the extent of the deadweight loss from the market failures in relation to food waste. In some cases, waste reduction efforts could harm producers if overall demand for food is reduced or harm consumers if overconsumption is encouraged, quality or safety degrades, or supply disruptions occur. Technological innovations, which lower the cost of storage or extend shelf life have the potential to improve both consumer and producer welfare.

show abstract

“…Focusing on DCE Boxall et al (2009) put forward three reasons why people choose the SQ: endowment effect, omission bias and avoidance of choice. Endowment effect would imply that the SQ has a specific utility irrespective of its attributes, which would put into doubt all welfare economics (Just, 2017). Omission and avoidance of choice relate to respondents seeing the SQ as their preferred option or as a default.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments

Barreiro‐Hurlé

Espinosa-Goded

Martínez‐Paz

et al. 2018

EARN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Discrete choice experiments (DCE) normally include in their choice sets an option described as the status quo (i.e. no change to current situation; SQ). The literature has identified Status Quo Effect (SQE) as the systematic preference of the SQ over the alternatives that propose changes over and beyond what can be captured by the variation of attributes’ levels. In this paper, we conduct a meta-analysis of DCE applied in environmental policy to identify potential drivers of SQE. We find that accounting for heterogeneity in the econometric analysis, excluding protest responses and easing the choice’s cognitive burden reduce the presence of SQE.</p>

show abstract

The Behavioral Welfare Paradox: Practical, Ethical and Welfare Implications of Nudging

Cited by 12 publications

References 54 publications

How to run an experimental auction: a review of recent advances

How to run an experimental auction: a review of recent advances

Economics of household food waste

Choosing not to choose: A meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About